Rohit Arya, J.

1. The petitioner, a retired Platoon Commander reached to the age of superannuation on 31.7.2014, has approached this court with the grievance that after his retirement he has been subjected to the recovery of the amount of Rs. 68,531/- as indicated in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) issued to him on 06.08.2014 (Annexure P/1), however, no details of the aforesaid amount has been shown in the document. That apart, at no point of time, the petitioner was ever issued a notice against such recovery or afforded an opportunity for explanation during his service tenure. Such recovery after retirement is patently illegal and unsustainable in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih - (2015) 4 SCC 334.

2. Per contra, Ms. Nidhi Patankar, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State supports the impugned recovery on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh - AIR 2016 SC 3523.

3. Heard.

4. Undisputedly, the petitioner is subjected to the impugned recovery after his retirement through the issuance of PPO purportedly on an audit objection as indicated in the